-
The Laryngoscope Jun 2024To systematically review the literature regarding previously described peritonsillar abscess (PTA) drainage simulation. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the literature regarding previously described peritonsillar abscess (PTA) drainage simulation.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid, and Cochrane.
REVIEW METHODS
A search of the abovementioned databases was performed in August 2022 using the terms "peritonsillar abscess/quinsy," "incision/drainage/aspiration," and "simulation." No time restrictions were applied. We included studies that clearly described how their PTA models were built and underwent validation from experts and/or evaluation from trainees. Articles describing a model only without any evaluation and reports in languages other than English were excluded.
RESULTS
Our search initially yielded 80 articles after duplicate removal, 10 of which met our criteria and were included. Two studies trained participants on both needle aspiration and incision and drainage (I&D), four studies on I&D only, and four on needle aspiration only. 87.5% to 100% of junior residents reported minimal exposure to PTA prior to simulation. Five studies provided some form of validation to their models. The value of the simulators to train participants on skills received better appreciation than their anatomical fidelity. The perceived confidence level of trainees in managing PTA, which was assessed in 7 studies, substantially improved after training.
CONCLUSION
PTA simulation improves the confidence of trainees to perform PTA drainage. There is, however, a lack of standardization and evidence regarding transfer validity among PTA simulators. The development of a standardized PTA simulator could allow for more widespread use and increase resident comfort with this procedure in a pre-clinical setting.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
NA Laryngoscope, 134:2495-2501, 2024.
Topics: Peritonsillar Abscess; Humans; Drainage; Clinical Competence; Simulation Training; Internship and Residency; Models, Anatomic
PubMed: 37991176
DOI: 10.1002/lary.31196 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Aug 2023Distinguishing peritonsillar abscess (PTA) from peritonsillar cellulitis using clinical assessment is challenging as many features overlap for both conditions, and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Distinguishing peritonsillar abscess (PTA) from peritonsillar cellulitis using clinical assessment is challenging as many features overlap for both conditions, and physical examination is only about 75% sensitive and 50% specific for diagnosing PTA. The primary objective of this systematic review was to determine the test characteristics of ultrasound for diagnosing PTA when compared to a reference standard of computed tomography or acquisition of pus via needle aspiration or incision and drainage.
METHODS
This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines. We searched seven databases from 1960 to November 2022. Two independent reviewers completed study selection, data extraction, and QUADAS-2 risk-of-bias assessment. We used a bivariate random-effects model to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-). We also conducted subgroup analyses on radiology ultrasound compared to point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and intraoral compared to transcervical scanning techniques.
RESULTS
From 339 citations, we identified 18 studies for inclusion. Because one study only reported positive cases of PTA (thereby preventing the calculation of specificity), it was excluded from the analysis, so the analysis included a total of 17 studies with 812 patients, of whom 541 had PTA. Pooled bivariate sensitivity was 86% (95% confidence interval [CI] 78%-91%), specificity 76% (95% CI 67%-82%), LR+ 3.51 (95% CI 2.59-4.89), and LR- 0.19 (95% CI 0.12-0.30). On subgroup analysis, radiology-performed ultrasound had a sensitivity and specificity of 89% and 71%, compared to POCUS, which had a sensitivity and specificity of 74% and 79%. Comparing the two different techniques, intraoral had a sensitivity and specificity of 91% and 75% while transcervical had a sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 81%.
CONCLUSIONS
Ultrasound demonstrates high sensitivity for ruling out PTA, but it only has moderate specificity for ruling in the diagnosis.
Topics: Humans; Peritonsillar Abscess; Ultrasonography; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Sensitivity and Specificity; Physical Examination
PubMed: 36625850
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14660 -
The Journal of Laryngology and Otology Sep 2023Peritonsillar abscess is a localised infection in the peritonsillar space. Pus from the abscess can contain anaerobes. Many clinicians prescribe metronidazole in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Peritonsillar abscess is a localised infection in the peritonsillar space. Pus from the abscess can contain anaerobes. Many clinicians prescribe metronidazole in addition to penicillin, but evidence to support this is limited. This review assessed the evidence of benefit of metronidazole for the treatment of peritonsillar abscess.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted of the literature and databases including Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, PubMed and Cochrane library. Search terms included all variations of peritonsillar abscess, penicillin and metronidazole.
RESULTS
Three randomised, control trials were included. All studies assessed the clinical outcomes after treatment for peritonsillar abscess, including recurrence rate, length of hospital stay and symptom improvement. There was no evidence to suggest additional benefit with metronidazole, with studies suggesting increased side effects.
CONCLUSION
Evidence does not support the addition of metronidazole in first-line management of peritonsillar abscess. Further trials to establish optimum dose and duration schedules of oral phenoxymethylpenicillin would benefit clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Peritonsillar Abscess; Metronidazole; Penicillins; Penicillin V; Drainage; Anti-Bacterial Agents
PubMed: 37194922
DOI: 10.1017/S0022215123000804